different token streams in 1.2, that was the real problem in 1.0.
Michal
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Goetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Case Sensitivity - and more
> Ok, maybe I misled a point a bit. But Brian's proposal as I see it was to
> _group_ two tokenizers that differ in a single thing.
I don't think that's what I was proposing... I was recognizing that
sometimes the analysis process is a composite one, and I was advocating
that the composition be
> Currently it is easy to use different analyzers for different purposes,
no?
> I'm not sure how Brian's proposal (bi-modal analyzers: tokenize only &
> tokenize+normalize) addresses your needs.
Ok, maybe I misled a point a bit. But Brian's proposal as I see it was to
_group_ two tokenizers that
> From: Michal Plechawski
>
> I think that Brian's idea is more flexible and extendable. In my
> application, I need three or more kinds of analyzers: for
> counting tfidf
> statistics, for indexing (compute more, e.g. summaries) and
> for document
> classification (compute document-to-class ass
Hi,
I have never written anything to the list but in fact, I am doing some
development using Lucene.
I think that Brian's idea is more flexible and extendable. In my
application, I need three or more kinds of analyzers: for counting tfidf
statistics, for indexing (compute more, e.g. summaries) an
